You can have at least some proof of something without being 100% certain it is true. But you would have to believe everything that hasn't been 100% proven to be false..

A famous scientist called Max Planck once said:

"We have no right to assume that any physical laws exist, or if they have existed up until now, that they will continue to exist in a similar manner in the future."

Exactly, you shouldn't assume something is true just because you want to. You should wait until there is proof of it being true.

28 Jul 2009, 02:17

Borsuc

Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania

Borsuc

Proof is impossible. All you can have is evidence, which is never conclusive as ultimate proof. Just use what you've got as tools and not as absolute truth -- reserve that to philosophy.

Anytime you think you have proof of something, the laws of physics can change (as Planck said) and you would be wrong. Because proof doesn't exist. That doesn't mean the theories until then couldn't have been used as tools!

28 Jul 2009, 02:21

Azu

Joined: 16 Dec 2008
Posts: 1160

Azu

Borsuc wrote:

Proof is impossible. All you can have is evidence, which is never conclusive as ultimate proof. Just use what you've got as tools and not as absolute truth -- reserve that to philosophy.

Anytime you think you have proof of something, the laws of physics can change (as Planck said) and you would be wrong. Because proof doesn't exist. That doesn't mean the theories until then couldn't have been used as tools!

If god flew down from heaven in one of his magic chariot things with trumphets and shit, and levitated everyone into the air, that would be pretty decent proof that he exists. Maybe not 100%, but much better than just "noone has proved he is false yet"!

28 Jul 2009, 02:23

Borsuc

Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania

Borsuc

Maybe, but that's not scientific. It may convince you, and me, but that has nothing to do with scientific method.

Example: what if we're in a Matrix and this "god" who did his shit was actually someone playing around e.g: the machines?

what if?? what if??
it can go endlessly.
thankfully science ignores it and doesn't focus on truth, but on predictions.

28 Jul 2009, 02:28

Azu

Joined: 16 Dec 2008
Posts: 1160

Azu

Borsuc wrote:

Maybe, but that's not scientific. It may convince you, and me, but that has nothing to do with scientific method.

Example: what if we're in a Matrix and this "god" who did his shit was actually someone playing around e.g: the machines?

what if?? what if??
it can go endlessly.
thankfully science ignores it and doesn't focus on truth, but on predictions.

He would be God of the pseudo-universe we existed in, then.

Like I said, not perfect and irrefutable, but definitely better then nothing (e.g. "you can't prove it's false so it must be true").

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot vote in polls in this forumYou can attach files in this forumYou can download files in this forum